Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kerry Anne  Kearns

Speedi Dry Cleaners

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Marjorie Prendergast

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00071161-001

29/04/2025

The Complainant alleges that she was unfairly dismissed. The complaint is contested by the Respondent stating that the Complainant’s position was made redundant just prior to the closing of the business.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent’s father, Michael, in 2015. She had her baby in June 2016. When she returned to work following her maternity leave, she worked two days per week.

Her duties included working alongside the dry cleaner. She took in clothes from customers, returned the clothes to customers, and banked the money. When the dry cleaner retired, the Respondent decided to engage an external business to carry out the dry-cleaning work. The Complainant’s role remained the same. She continued working until 10 December 2024. On that date, she received a phone call from the Respondent informing her that the business was making a loss and that they were going to have to let people go. The Complainant did not like the way she was informed of this over the phone. She sought advice and was advised that she should receive her notice in writing. She subsequently received her termination/redundancy letter in writing. Her employment ended on 24 January 2025.

The Complainant accepted that she was being made redundant. She was fully aware that the business was struggling, and the redundancy came as no surprise to her. The Complainant lives beside the business. A number of people asked her why she had left. She told them that she had been made redundant. They asked why, as the business was still trading. In February, the Complainant went into the shop to return the keys. While there, she observed two other people working in the shop and carrying out her role. Both individuals were carrying out the same duties as the Complainant. The Complainant believed that the two individuals were foreign and that they were not being paid the minimum wage. However, she admitted that she did not know this as a fact.

The Complainant had worked on Tuesdays and Fridays and had worked alone. On the day she went into the shop, there were two people working there. They were Workaway workers. One of them had been working there while the Complainant was still employed, and the Complainant had in fact trained her.

The Complainant’s employment ended on 24 January 2025. She subsequently had surgery on 9 June. She was unable to work for 18 months following the surgery and, as a result, she has not worked since.

 Caroline De Ridder – took the affirmation and gave evidence as follows:

In 2020, Ms. De Ridder contacted Mr. Hayes and Ms. Prendergast because she wanted to carry out studies on their farm. She was undertaking an anthropology degree, which required her to study his entire life. She obtained their details through the Workaway programme. That programme allowed her to work with him on the farm and to follow his life.

Mr. Hayes  did take her to the dry cleaners to show it to her. As part of the Workaway programme, she was entitled to work five hours per week for the host. The work was done on a voluntary basis. She never worked in the dry cleaners. She was given a tour of it, and it was explained to her how the system worked and how all of the machines, both new and old, worked. That was all part of her research.

The Complainant said that Ms De Ridder did work in the dry cleaners. That was denied. Her research was mainly in relation to the farm and his relationship with the farm and the animals. In 2020, she did get a tour of the shop, and it was explained to her how everything worked, but she never worked there.

Phillip Tuttinghoff – took the affirmation and gave evidence as follows:

He was also a Workaway worker. He is currently staying with the Respondent. He is studying to be a teacher, so he wants to improve his English. He contacted Mr Hayes through Workaway. He is entitled to work a maximum of five hours. The work that he does consists of domestic jobs and work around the garden and the exterior of the house. He does not get paid. He does get accommodation, food and keep. He has never worked in the dry cleaners. It was closed when he arrived.

Marjorie Prendergast – took the affirmation and gave evidence as follows:

The Complainant mentioned a phone call on 10th December in relation to notifying her of the redundancy. Ms Prendergast has no recollection of that. Mr Hayes did have numerous discussions with her about the state of the business though.

Ms Prendergast wrote the letter of redundancy. Mr Hayes signed it and gave it to her. It is accepted that Christmas Eve was probably not the best time to give someone that type of letter. However, she was aware of the business’s financial issues.

The Complainant’s redundancy was calculated using the redundancy calculator online. It came out at €3,700.00. She was paid that. The Respondent is very upset about this claim because everything that could be done was done, and she was a friend. Mr Hayes actually paid a contribution towards her mother’s funeral.

Dermot Hayes – took the affirmation and gave evidence as follows:

Following the Complainants role being made redundant the shop remained open from 24th January to Easter Saturday,  on Tuesday, Friday and Saturday. That was just to wind down the business and to try to get all of the items in stock returned to clients. Mr Hayes did all of that.

On the odd occasion, there were Workaway workers there just helping Mr Hayes out. They were not paid. They did get their board and keep as part of the Workaway agreement.

The Complainant is incorrect when she states that other individuals were working in the store after he left.

The doors finally shut on Easter Saturday. The building has been sold.

The issue for determination is whether the termination of the Complainant’s employment arose by reason of a genuine redundancy or whether, as contended by the Complainant, her role continued to exist and was subsequently carried out by other individuals which occurrence may bring the situation under the jurisdiction of the Unfair Dismissals Act.

I have carefully considered the oral and written evidence presented by both parties.

It is common case that the Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent’s father in 2015 and that, following her return from maternity leave, she worked two days per week. Her duties included taking in clothes from customers, returning cleaned items to customers and banking monies received. When the person who carried out the dry-cleaning work retired, the Respondent outsourced that element of the business. The Complainant nevertheless continued to perform her role until her employment terminated on 24 January 2025.

It is also common case that the business was experiencing financial difficulties. Significantly, the Complainant herself accepted in evidence that she was fully aware that the business was struggling and that the redundancy came as no surprise to her. The evidence of Ms Marjorie Prendergast was that Mr Hayes had had numerous discussions with the Complainant concerning the state of the business prior to the termination of her employment.

I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a genuine redundancy situation existed at the time the Complainant’s role was made redundant. I accept the Respondent’s evidence that the business was experiencing financial difficulties and was in the process of being wound down. I am further satisfied that the Complainant’s position ceased to be required in those circumstances.

The fact that the premises did not close immediately on 24 January 2025 does not, in my view, undermine the existence of the redundancy situation. Mr Hayes gave evidence that the shop remained open on Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays from 24 January 2025 until Easter Saturday solely for the purpose of winding down the business and returning the remaining items of stock to customers. He stated that he personally undertook this work. I accept that evidence. I am satisfied that the shop remained open after the termination of the Complainant’s employment for the limited purpose of winding down the business and ensuring that all remaining items were returned to customers. The evidence that the doors finally closed on Easter Saturday and that the building was subsequently sold is consistent with the Respondent’s evidence that the business was being wound down rather than continuing to trade in the ordinary course.

I have also considered carefully the Complainant’s evidence that, when she attended the premises in February to return her keys, she observed two individuals in the shop whom she believed were carrying out the duties she had previously performed. The Complainant identified those individuals as Workaway workers and stated that one of them had been present while she was still employed and had been trained by her. The Respondent disputed that these individuals had replaced the Complainant or were employed in the business. Evidence was given on affirmation by two Workaway participants, Caroline De Ridder and Phillip Tuttinghoff. Ms De Ridder gave evidence that she had contacted Dermot and Marjorie through the Workaway programme in connection with her anthropology studies. Her research principally concerned the farm and Mr Hayes’s relationship with the farm and the animals. She accepted that Mr Hayes had brought her to the dry-cleaning premises and had shown her how the business and its machinery operated. However, she was clear in her evidence that this was part of her research and that she never worked in the dry-cleaning business.

Mr Tuttinghoff also gave evidence on affirmation. He explained that he had contacted Mr Hayes through the Workaway programme and that the work he undertook consisted of domestic jobs and work around the garden and exterior of the house. He was not paid, although he received accommodation, food and keep. He was unequivocal in his evidence that he had never worked in the dry-cleaning business and that the business was closed when he arrived.

Having considered this evidence, I prefer the direct evidence of the two Workaway participants concerning the nature of their activities. While I accept that the Complainant genuinely believed that Workaway participants were carrying out her former role, the evidence before me does not establish that they were employed to perform her duties or that her position continued to exist following the termination of her employment.

I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities and based in particular on the evidence of the two Workaway participants, that they did not work in the Respondent’s dry-cleaning business following the cessation of the Complainant’s employment. I am therefore not satisfied that the Complainant was replaced by Workaway workers or that the continued presence of any such individuals at the premises demonstrates that her role remained in existence.

I have also taken into consideration the evidence that the Complainant received a redundancy payment calculated using the online redundancy calculator in the sum of €3,700.00.

Taking all of the evidence into account, I find that a genuine redundancy situation existed at the time the Complainant’s employment was terminated. I further find that the limited opening of the premises between 24 January 2025 and Easter Saturday was for the purpose of winding down the business and returning outstanding stock to customers and did not amount to a continuation of the business in circumstances requiring the continuation of the Complainant’s role. Therefore,  I find that the Complainant’s employment terminated by reason of a genuine redundancy.

Accordingly, I find that the complaint is not well founded and fails.

The complaint fails.

Redundancy. Unfair Dismissal. Continuation of role.